arrow left
arrow right
  • County of Santa Cruz vs Bureau of Cannabis Control39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review document preview
  • County of Santa Cruz vs Bureau of Cannabis Control39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review document preview
  • County of Santa Cruz vs Bureau of Cannabis Control39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review document preview
  • County of Santa Cruz vs Bureau of Cannabis Control39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review document preview
  • County of Santa Cruz vs Bureau of Cannabis Control39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review document preview
  • County of Santa Cruz vs Bureau of Cannabis Control39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review document preview
  • County of Santa Cruz vs Bureau of Cannabis Control39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review document preview
  • County of Santa Cruz vs Bureau of Cannabis Control39 Unlimited - Other Judicial Review document preview
						
                                

Preview

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California HARINDER K. KAPUR Senior Assistant Attorney General State Bar Number: 198769 STACEY L. ROBERTS Supervising Deputy Attorney General State Bar Number: 237998 E-FILED Ethan A. Turner 6/8/2020 1:05 PM Deputy Attorney General Superior Court of California State Bar Number 294891 County of Fresno 1300 I Street, Suite 125 By: S. Garcia, Deputy P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7833 Fax: (916) 327-2319 10 E-mail: Stacey.Roberts@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants, Bureau of Cannabis Control t Exempt from filin fees pursuant to Gov. ode §6103 and Lori Ajax, Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis 11 Control 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF FRESNO 14 15 16 17 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL., Case No. 19CECG01224 18 Plaintiffs, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, EXHIBITS VOLUME 1 OF 2 (EXHIBITS 19 A-E) 20 BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL; 21 LORI AJAX, in her official capacity as Dept: 403 Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control; Judge: Honorable Rosemary T. McGuire 22 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Trial Date: July 16, 2020 Action Filed: April 4, 2019 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice Exhibits Vol. 1 of2 (19CECG01224) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO Case No.. 19CECG01224 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF Vv. RECORDS 9 BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL; LORI AJAX, in her official capacity as 10 Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 11 Defendants. 12 13 I, the undersigned, being the duly authorized custodian of records or other qualified witness in the 14 |} employ of the Bureau of Cannabis Control declare as follows: 15 1 Iam over the age of 18 years. My business address is 2920 Kilgore Road, Rancho Cordova, 16 California, 95670. 17 2 The Bureau of Cannabis Control is the state licensing entity responsible for regulating the 18 following commercial cannabis activities: retail, distribution, microbusiness, testing laboratory, 19 and cannabis events. 20 3 The Bureau of Cannabis Control also possesses records relating to the Cannabis Advisory 21 Committee including, but not limited to, records of meeting minutes, meeting transcripts, public 22 comments, and meeting presentations. 23 Iam a duly qualified witness, authorized to certify the following Cannabis Advisory Committee 24 records which are attached: 25 a. November 16, 2017 Cannabis Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 26 b. March 15, 2018 Cannabis Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 27 July 19, 2018 Cannabis Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 28 August 20, 2018 Cannabis Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 1 1 ©. June 28, 2019 Cannabis Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 2 5 If I were called as a witness in this matter, I could and would competently testify to the foregoing 3 facts. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true 5 and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 6 7 || Dated: June 04, 2020 KAILA FAYNE 8 9 10 11 122 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A | BUREAU or CANNABIS CONTROL CALIFORNIA Cc annabis AdvisoryCommitte Meeting Minutes — November 16, 2017 Sacramento Masonic Temple 1123 J Street, Sacramento 95814 Members Present (22): Avis Bulbulyan Timmen Cermak Matt Clifford Bill Dombrowski Jeff Ferro Kristin Heidelbach-Teramoto Eric Hirata Alice Huffman Catherine Jacobson Arnold Leff Kristin Lynch Kristin Nevedal Joe Nicchitta LaVonne Peck Matt Rahn Keith Stephenson James Sweeney Tamar Todd Helena Williams David Woolsey Ben Wu Beverly Yu Members Absent (0) Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency / Department of Consumer Affairs Alexis Podesta — Secretary, Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency Dean R. Grafilo — Director, Department of Consumer Affairs Page 1 of 13 Bureau of Cannabis Control Executive Staff Present Lori Ajax — Bureau Chief Melanie V. Ramil — Deputy Bureau Chief Connie Bouvia — Assistant Chief of Licensing Tamara Colson — Assistant Chief Counsel Ricardo V. DeLaCruz — Assistant Chief of Administration Andre Jones — Assistant Chief of External and Intergovernmental Affairs Alex Traverso — Assistant Chief of Communications Paul Tupy — Assistant Chief of Enforcement Minutes Taken By Ashlynn Blackshire, Legal Secretary, Bureau of Cannabis Control 1. Oath of Office, Call to Order, and Establishment of a Quorum (Dean R. Grafilo, Director, Department of Consumer Affairs) Director Grafilo administered the oath of office to the 22 appointed members of the Cannabis Advisory Committee. Deputy Chief Ramil, as acting meeting chair, called the meeting to order. Meeting official start time noted at 10:28 AM. Roll was taken and all 22 committee members were present. Quorum was established. Committee Comment: 0 Comments Public Comment: 0 Comments 2. Welcome (Alexis Podesta, Secretary, Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency) Director Grafilo introduced Secretary Podesta. Secretary Podesta provided welcome remarks. In her Welcome, Secretary Podesta thanked the Bureau for their work and shared that the Committee will play an important role in working to create permanent regulations. Committee Comment: 0 Comments Public Comment: 0 Comments 3. Overview of the Department of Consumer Affairs (Director Grafilo) Director Grafilo provided an overview of DCA, and shared that the Department has established the Office of Student Assistance and implemented a new training and mentoring program called “The Future Leadership Development Initiative.” Director Grafilo also stated that the committee members represent various stakeholder communities, diverse voices, and perspectives within Page 2 of 13 California and the cannabis industry, and that the committee has the necessary skills to be successful. Committee Comment: 0 Comments Public Comment: 0 Comments 4, Overview of the Bureau of Cannabis Control and Staff Introductions (Lori Ajax, Chief, Bureau of Cannabis Control) Director Grafilo introduced Chief Ajax. Chief Ajax provided welcome remarks and then introduced the Bureau’s Executive Team. Committee Comment: 0 Comments Public Comment: 2 Comments George Bianchini: Referenced Prop 64 funds not being appropriated to industrial hemp farmers. Susan Tibben: Voiced concern for the small farmer and the high fees they will face. 5. Cannabis Advisory Committee Members Introductions Committee members introduced themselves, including their professional occupation. Committee Comment: 0 Comments Public Comment: 2 Comments George Bianchini: The board has a lot of union members and the committee should be protecting the industry from unions rather than putting so many on the committee. Ray Perez: There needs to be representation from the community in Sacramento and people who were affected by the war on drugs not just stakeholders in the industry. 6. Presentation of Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act Guidelines (Tamara Colson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Bureau of Cannabis Control) Assistant Chief Counsel Colson provided an overview and training of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Background Document Available on BCC Website: “A Guide to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act” Committee Comment: 0 Comments Public Comment: 0 Comments Page 3 of 13 7. Discussion and Possible Action to Approve, Modify, or Reject Cannabis Advisory Committee 2018 Meeting Schedule and Location Recommendations Deputy Chief Ramil reviewed the 2018 Meeting Schedule and Location Recommendations, stating the committee would meet bi-monthly next year for a total of 6 meetings. Meetings will be held on the 3“ Thursday of the month with meetings throughout California. Background Document Available on BCC Website: “2018 Meeting Recommendations” Committee Comment: 4 Comments (leading to motion and vote) Committee Member Huffman asked about attendance requirements. Committee Member Wu commented that the November 2018 recommended date would conflict with an annual industry show in Las Vegas, NV. Committee Member Ferro made a motion to move the recommended November 15, 2018 Committee Meeting to November 8, 2018 to allow members’ participation in the annual industry show. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Ben Wu. Committee Member Jacobson asked how to establish quorum. Committee Member Ferro re-motioned the committee to move the recommended November 15, 2018 Committee Meeting to November 8, 2018. The motion was co-seconded by Committee Members Wu and Sweeney. Roll call vote was taken, the motion to modify the recommendation with the November 8, 2018 passed on a 22-0 vote. AZ 09) EY" BUY WEY iy AN} Avis Bulbulyan Timmen Cermak Matt Clifford Bill Dombrowski Jeff Ferro Kristin Heidelbach- Teramoto Eric Hirata Alice Huffman Catherine Jacobson Arnold Leff Kristin Lynch Kristin Nevedal Page 4 of 13 Joe Nicchitta LaVonne Peck Matt Rahn Keith Stephenson James Sweeney Tamar Todd Helena Williams David Woolsey Ben Wu Vv Beverly Yu Vv Public Comment: 1 Comment George Bianchini: The Las Vegas industry event will not start until November 16 next year. 8. Overview of the Cannabis Portal — Online Resource (Alex Traverso, Assistant Chief of Communications, Bureau of Cannabis Control) Assistant Chief of Communications Traverso provided an overview of the California Cannabis Portal, including what users can find on the website. Traverso also mentioned that the 3 licensing entities’ social media links have been included and that the Portal now has an events calendar to help track the events of all 3 licensing entities. Committee Comment: 2 Comments Committee Member Huffman wanted to let public commenter Ray Perez know she has in fact been affected by the war on drugs, and she is open to input from the public. Committee Member Stephenson shared that he is aware of the war on drugs and his opportunity to serve on the committee will be with the greatest due diligence to move the industry forward for all. Public Comment: 2 Comments George Bianchini: Would like more substantial information on the portal related to the how licensees will implement the regulations. Mark Whitlow: Asked if ones needs to check the portal daily if you are on the BCC email list. Additional Public Comment: No name given: Public heath comment on labeling. Page 5 of 13 Erica Miller: Question regarding licensing process, expedited process for certain types of companies. Susan Tibben: There is a lack of committee members who actually grow cannabis. Jeff Jeron: Addressed compliance issues with packaging, child resistance packaging, opaque packaging and the verbiage that needs to be on the label etc. 9. Overview of the Regulatory Process (Tamara Colson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Bureau of Cannabis Control) Assistant Chief Counsel Colson provided an overview of the regulatory process, including the definition of regulations and how regulations are adopted in the State of California. Colson provided information on the difference between emergency rulemaking and regular rulemaking. Colson also shared information on the process as it relates to public participation. Committee Comment: 1 Comment Committee Member Nicchitta asked about the 5-day comment period within the emergency rulemaking process in the event there are holidays. Assistant Chief Counsel Colson stated that the 5 working days prior to the public comment period starts today, the days of the holiday would apply to that 5 working day period. The 5 calendar days start when the regulations are submitted to the Office of Administrative Law. Public Comment: 3 Comments Mark Whitlow: When is the comment period, from what day to what day? What should we monitor in order to find out when the regulations have been submitted and the comment period is open? Ray Perez: Will the public comments be published? No name given: Question regarding canopy. 10. A) California Environmental Quality Act Process Overview (Michael Stevenson, Horizon Water and Environment, LLC) Mr. Stevenson provided an overview of the CEQA process, including the purpose of the study and the outcome of the Bureau’s analysis. He shared that the Bureau’s analysis concluded that its proposed program would have no or less-than-significant impact on the event, resulting in the Bureau’s adoption of a Negative Declaration. He concluded his report by sharing that the Bureau has filed a Notice of Determination with the Office of Planning and Research. Background Document Available on BCC Website: “CEQA Overview PowerPoint Presentation” Committee Comment: 1 Comment Page 6 of 13 Committee Member Cermak asked if there were separate CEQA reports for CDPH and CDFA? Bureau staff responded — Yes, as separate lead agencies they are responsible for their own CEQA compliance. Public Comment: 2 Comments George Bianchini: CEQA did not account for the indoor grows. No name given: How individual growers and microbusinesses will be affected by CEQA? Are they individually responsible for those documents? 10. B) Emergency Rulemaking Updates (Lori Ajax, Chief, Bureau of Cannabis Control; Richard Parrott, Director, CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Division; CDFA Miren Klein, Assistant Deputy Director, Center for Environmental Health, CDPH) All three licensing entities gave PowerPoint presentations to update committee members and the public on the emergency regulations. Background Documents Available on BCC Website: BCC Emergency Regulation PowerPoint CDFA Emergency Regulations Update PowerPoint CDPH Emergency Regulations PowerPoint Following the presentations, Committee Members asked the three licensing bureaus questions a myriad of questions, focused on the following: Committee Member Ferro: Asked questions about the 600-foot radius, deliver limits, and the possibility of a “co-op” license. Committee Member Jacobson: Asked questions about the microbusiness license, standardized testing between labs, lab guidelines and processes, how responsibilities and costs are handled between licensees, how the trace and trace system will be enforced, facility inspections, and the expiration dates of manufactured goods. Committee Member Huffman: Asked questions about the affordability of products and the impact of that on the illicit market, regulations that help ensure that communities impacted by the war on drugs can participate in the cannabis industry, opportunities for small businesses, the insurance bond requirement, and hemp farming. Committee Member Sweeney: Asked about premises sharing and compassionate use licenses, equity piece within the regulations, and the Bureau’s staff and operations. Committee Member Todd: Asked about the plan for data collection, the temporary license program, causes for denial, barriers to entry and issues of equity, and data collection at the local level. Page 7 of 13 Committee Member Cermak: Asked about the transition period, specifically about products that may be attractive to children. Committee Member Woolsey: Asked about in-house testing for enforcement purposes and how sales will be handled between A and M products. Committee Member Stephenson: Asked about dosage and labeling issues, limits on state licenses, microbusiness activity, and local approval. Committee Member Wu: Asked about temporary license fees, child resistant packaging and how the term “attractive to children” is defined, temporary cannabis events, cost of testing, online licensing system, tamper evident options, and additional questions regarding packaging. Committee Member Bulbulyan: Asked about FDA’s CGMP (Current Good Manufacturing Practice) guidelines in relation to licensees, distance requirements, microbusinesses, units per package, how products that fail testing are handled, definition of owner, transport, bookkeeping for businesses with multiple locations, testing batches, and shared space between licensees. Committee Member Nevedal: Asked about how businesses can operate with both an A and M license, harvest batch sizes, light deprivation techniques for outdoor cultivation, and temporary cannabis event licenses. Committee Member Rahn: Asked about the process of notification in the event an owner/licensee is convicted. Committee Member Nichitta: Asked about how the state will be working with local officials, such as agricultural commissioners and local health officers, to do inspections, checks, etc. Public Comment: 27 Comments Charles Fraizer, COO Minorities for Medical Marijuana: Data shows for over two decades black and brown residents were arrested and incarcerated for drug offences at disparately high rates while white cannabis cultivators, manufactures, and distributors who were not operating entirely above board either flourished under the changing law designed to accommodate the bourgeoning industry. The Oakland City Council first brought the issues to light and has previously explored several alternative legislative proposals in 2016. The newly adopted regulations seek to address the ongoing economic inequality that results in disparity of drug arrests as well as other racial barriers to wealth building and business ownership by bringing innovation in an equity lens to the cannabis industry. The development of more diverse, equitable, and more inclusive legislation at the state level for the medical cannabis industry will have a positive impact on the industry as a whole as business owners consider how to take advantage of the new adult recreational use laws in California. Appropriations of Funds for AB 1135 to ensure diverse groups and organizations are able to compete in the cannabis market. Standalone Legislation to bring Pop 209 into cannabis retail space. Encourage outside consultation regarding equity, diversity, and decriminalization. Page 8 of 13 Ray: Can cannabis clubs employ temp workers? Can distributors contract out following all the requirements? Can cultivators contract out farming services? Bureau should look at creating something like an SBA Loan Program? Insurance coverage could be like for earthquakes in such that state insurance issues policies for the cannabis industry. Will state recognize cities like Oakland that permit individuals with prior cannabis related offenses? Delivery only is that only for medical? Can we capture data to see how each business hires minority, women, businessperson, etc? David Edgeton, CW Analytical, Cannabis Testing Lab in Oakland, CA: ISO 17025 is not written specifically for cannabis labs but tests the competence of any testing environment. General but it works well. There are no standard methods for cannabis so each lab then creates their own internal protocols which will create extreme variance between labs. What are the implications if one lab would say pass and another fail for the same product? Paul Hansburry, Cannabis Farmer, Mendocino County: I do a microbusiness out of my home, the regulations seem to be geared toward large industries, major industrial manufacturers. The security requirements for manufacturers, I’d have to wear a laminated badge with my photograph on it to walk around my house, then sign in and sign out as I went from one room to another, to comply with security. Why is ethanol banned? Ethanol has been used for centuries, for making tinctures, the small farmers in an effort to carve out a niche to do what they have been doing for generations has to start producing some sort of value added product in order to survive, keep food on the table and pay the bills. Ethanol has been used for making tinctures, all you’re doing it soaking the cannabis in the alcohol it’s as safe as keeping a bottle of vodka in your liquor cabinet. Further, there are UL approved devices, distillers that are certified for home use for using ethanol for making extractions. In Mendocino County, they have language in their ordinance for using volatile solvents in a non-volatile manner. Justin Pusherrick, Testing Lab Operator: Need more clarity on who is writing testing lab regulations? How much expertise does that person actually have? Why isn’t there a scientist on the committee that can be advising us on this kind of stuff? Lawyers shouldn’t have such technical expertise on some chemistry aspects. Susan Tibben, Liaison between Mendocino and Sacramento County and retired faculty for the CA Academy of Sciences: Small farmers are implementing best practices, they are using integrated best management, we are stewards of the land, we have companion plants, that means the emergency regulations are asking us to look at our whole garden and charging instead of the 2,500-sq. ft. of canopy, which is the dripline of the plant, they are charging us for over 20,000- sq. ft. because they are including all of our best practices. Please don’t penalize small farmers. In addition, the regulations talk about not cutting people out about promoting the black market, right now in our northern counties we’ve got stickers all over the place talking about the black market so please include us. We have members in California Growers Association, we are founding members of Black Farmers Association, old people who’ve been up there for generations, young people, 3“ and 4" generations who are stewards of the land. George Bianchini: Hemp org needs funds after Prop 64 split funds, causing members to use their own funds. I offered them a loan but they said it wasn’t legal. Testing requirements, at least Page 9 of 13 in the City of Berkeley, outlaw methods used by organic farmers. APC count would suffice. Is it possible the 120-day extension be 119 days to end not on Aprils Fool Day? John Webb, Cultivator, Trinity County: There was nothing discussed on banking, or how money is going to be transferred seeing as banks are FDI insured, if they know you are in the industry they will freeze your accounts so from a distributor picking up 100 Ibs. at $1,000 Ibs. that’s $100,000 in cash? How do we pay taxes to Board of Equalization given we are not allowed bank accounts? Would also like to look at reducing the licensing fees. Mark Whitlow, Marine Analytics: Stability testing, at least for medical products, should be instituted and mandatory. Edibles do expire overtime, THC products especially. How do microbusinesses go about testing? If they have a distributor’s license can they bring it back to business? Doug Scott, American Biotech Testing, Salinas, CA: People will be thanking you in the years to come. Terrance Thomas, Armortech Security and Investigations: Security only concerns itself with safety aspects of regulations, including getting tax dollars from businesses to the state. Will there be an overall security addendum for specific security aspects of the industry? Being an all cash business it’s a large security risk and safety is most important Jen Price, Pacific Expediters Consulting Services, Santa Rosa: Environmental Impact Report—CDFA puts one acre cap on growing, yet new regulations released today never mention anything about a one acre cap. For multiple licensees on the same premise, are they required to have a distributor/transporter to bring it from one person to another within the property because it is going from one licensee to another? Unclear. It’s unclear on requirements for additives— caffeine. John Webb, Cultivator, Trinity County: The cost of testing: 5% of 1 pound, charged $50. 5% of 50 pounds, charged $50. I would like to get clarification on how the testing works. Suggestion, instead of allowing the distributor to do the testing to allow the cultivator to do the testing. Cultivators who price their products by THC content as well as the look and the flavor and quality should be responsible for testing in order to be able to make a better suggestion to the distributor on what the price should be. Also the distributor having already paid for the product, if it’s taken to the lab for testing and it doesn’t pass testing and has to be destroyed it’s the distributor who takes the loss since its already paid for. Matthew Chapin, Chapin Law: Foresees a lot of compliance issues in the first 12 months, would suggest all 3 entities have an increased degree of leniency within this time period at least for first time offenders. Temporary only rules will prevent early licenses engagement. Early on, businesses will be willing or unable to participate on par with illicit market. Can there be a path to licensure? Katy Maple, Law Firm: The fact that licensees can only do business with other licensees is going to be a very limiting factor for getting business into the regulated market. If you already Page 10 of 13 have a supply chain and everyone in your supply chain isn’t licensed then you cannot do business with them. How do compete against the illicit market if none of the people you work with are licensed and you can’t do business with them? I would suggest a transition period. Marko Tran, DB Labs: The inflation of THC values are noticeable in cannabis permissive states. Labs are pressured to find higher THC values. Could lead to trouble. I recommend a system where if a certified lab gives a client the THC results on the label they have to use those results to avoid the mark up. Jack: Concentrate limits for transporters is reasonable, but for top grade flower, one pound of flower can cost over $8k, making them take more than three trips for one pound. Shawn Aguilar, Real Estate Private Banker, Fairfax, CA: Standardization of landlord permission. Work with the Bureau of Real Estate to create a form, simplify and standardize the process. Bureau needs to be more specific on how to provide title and or grant deed. No name given for the following comments: 1) Are testing labs required to test for FDA requirements for content of alcohol, or shape and appearance of the packaged items so that they do not attract children? 2) Regulations do not have a provision or contingency when testing labs report results that do not meet the specifications. 3 Can ancillary businesses, such as bottling, have better clarification so they can properly apply for the correct license? 4) Could the CEQA report pertaining specifically to microbusinesses be published on the BCC Website, if it is available I’d like to be directed to where I can find it? Clarity on record keeping for microbusiness, I assume microbusiness won’t be using the track and trace system, so what records would we be required to keep and for how long? 5) Cash flow fees could be extra monies possibly going to the state go to an equity grant? Could the board fund equity programs, where you can mentor and teach people the industry? From investors view, shared space is giving away half of the company. 6) There is a problem with testing. 7) 3" party packaging company, would like to see more clarification on business that run vertical to the industry, we don’t handle, grow, or sale it but ifa distributor would like to drop off product for co-packaging, I’d like to see more clarification if I’d be considered a microbusiness or a processor. 11. Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda Public Comment: 5 Comments Charles Fraizer: Spoke to Assembly Bill 1135 and the monies appropriated to programs and communities in diverse areas, but the monies are not defined in the bill and that needs to be changed and put in writing where those funds are going. Page 11 of 13 Ryan Reeves: Type 7 Level 2 manufacturing, extractors are producing are amazing things but many cities and counties are not regulating Type 7 Level 2 manufacturing. Also requested expansion on the language for nonprofits. George Bianchini: Law enforcement in San Joaquin destroyed a hemp grow because the sheriff said Prop 64 doesn’t belong in his county. Mark Whitlow: Some of the money from cannabis should be spent on doing research on the toxicology of the cannabinoids and the pesticides associated with them. Also, would like this body to set pesticide use for cannabis in California. Charles Fraizer: Prop 209 created challenges when trying to create language for diversity so standalone legislation would help alleviate those challenges. 12. Future Agenda Items Committee Members’ recommended the following items to possibly be discussed at future committee meeting: Jacobson: Further discussion on the testing issue, and discussion on the banking issue. Woolsey: Requested handouts for all PowerPoints at future meetings. Nevedal: More discussion around bifurcation issues in relationship to cultivation and how A and M licenses overlay or don’t overlay. Cermak: More discussion on how to adjudicate the question of what is attractive to youth/children. Leff: Discussion on how to educate the public on the cannabis issue surrounding toxic amounts, prohibiting children and how we are going to market that message to the state. Discussion on Local enforcement and how that is going to be carried out Todd: Discussion on the issue of equity, barriers to entry, limitations on what data can be collected and what we can do otherwise. Peck: Discussion on the testing labs and the road blocks we are going to be facing when it’s rolled out. Is there going to be enough labs, etc. How are these issues and questions going to be addressed? Wu: Discussion on the amount of product that can be carried while on delivery ($3,000) - it’s inefficient, can cause back up and create more problems. Stephenson: Discuss funding to assist parolees. Huffman: Discussion on the equity framework. Page 12 of 13 13. Adjournment: 4:31 p.m. Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT B *| BUREAU oF CANNABIS CONTROL CALIFORNIA Cc ‘annabis Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes — March 15, 2018 Millennium Biltmore Hotel, Biltmore Bowl 506 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles Members Present (19): Avis Bulbulyan Timmen Cermak Matt Clifford Bill Dombrowski Jeff Ferro Kristin Heidelbach-Teramoto Eric Hirata Alice Huffman Catherine Jacobson Kristin Nevedal Joe Nicchitta LaVonne Peck Matt Rahn Keith Stephenson James Sweeney Tamar Todd David Woolsey Ben Wu Beverly Yu Members Absent (3) Arnold Leff Kristin Lynch Helena Williams Department of Consumer Affair: Dean R. Grafilo — Director, Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Cannabis Control (Bureau) Executive Staff Present Lori Ajax — Bureau Chief Melanie V. Ramil — Deputy Bureau Chief Tamara Colson — Assistant Chief Counsel Andre Jones — Assistant Chief of External and Intergovernmental Affairs Page 1 of 35 Alex Traverso — Assistant Chief of Communications Minutes Taken By Ashlynn Blackshire, Legal Secretary, Bureau of Cannabis Control 1 Welcome, Call to Order, and Establishment of a Quorum (Matt Rahn, Chair, Cannabis Advisory Committee) Matt Rahn, Cannabis Advisory Committee (Committee) Chair, called the meeting to order. Meeting official start time noted as 10:11 AM. Roll was taken, 19 Committee members were present. Quorum was established. Committee Comment: 0 Comments Public Comment: 0 Comments 2. Welcome Remarks (Dean R. Grafilo, Director, Department of Consumer Affairs and Lori Ajax, Chief, Bureau of Cannabis Control) Director Grafilo thanked the Committee members for their service. Director Grafilo also encouraged Committee members and the public to continue to provide their valuable feedback. Chief Ajax thanked everyone in attendance for their commitment to the Committee process. Chief Ajax expressed how important it is that the Bureau hear from all stakeholders. Chief Ajax also expressed how appreciative the Bureau is for the time attendees and Committee members have spent telling their stories, what is affecting them, and helping the Bureau and other licensing agencies shape the cannabis regulations. Committee Comment: 0 Comments Public Comment: 0 Comments 3. Review and Approval of January 18, 2018 Cannabis Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes The Committee reviewed the January 18, 2018 draft minutes. Committee Comment: 1 Comment Committee Member Huffman motioned to the Committee to approve and adopt the January 18, 2018 draft minutes as presented. Committee Member Sweeney seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken, the motion to approve and adopt the January 18, 2018 minutes passed on a 19-0 vote. Public Comment: 0 Comments Page 2 of 35 Wt We FUN VU IY UNE Y Col RYU E Avis Bulbulyan Timmen Cermak Matt Clifford Bill Dombrowski Jeff Ferro Kristin Heidelbach- Teramoto Eric Hirata Alice Huffman Catherine Jacobson Arnold Leff Kristin Lynch Kristin Nevedal Joe Nicchitta LaVonne Peck Matt Rahn Keith Stephenson James Sweeney Tamar Todd Helena Williams David Woolsey Ben Wu v Beverly Yu v Note: Agenda items were taken out of order to accommodate presentations from Subcommittee Chairs who had to leave the meeting early. 4. Discussion and Possible Action to Approve, Modify, or Reject the Subcommittee on Testing Laboratories’ Recommendations (Catherine Jacobson, Chair, Subcommittee on Testing Laboratories) Committee Member Jacobson presented the Testing Laboratory Subcommittee’s proposed recommendations to the Committee. Committee Comment: 6 Comments Chair Rahn suggested that the Committee focus on the regulatory recommendations rather than the statutory recommendations since the Committee has no influence over legislation. Page 3 of 35 Committee Member Huffman asked whether the recommendations that require statutory changes will be parked, with nothing happening with them. Chair Rahn stated the statutory changes would be part of the record, but the Committee’s focus should be on regulatory changes. Committee Member Woolsey motioned, that the statutory recommendations that would need to be changed by statute or that address an issue in statute, be tabled to a future meeting. Committee Member Hirata seconded the motion. Committee Member Sweeney proposed identifying the “priority statutes," so that at least the Committee would have a laser focus on the parts that are pertinent to the entire body, compassion being one of those things. Committee Member Woolsey cited 26014 of the Business and Professions Code stating that the Advisory Committee is here to advise the licensing authorities, noting that nothing within it speaks to advising the legislature. Public Comment: 5 Comments Lindsey Colmey: Many of the items that are being tabled are about compassionate care. Ms. Colmey stated she is dealing with patients that are in pain that are not able to get their medication because this Bureau has put a stranglehold on donations. Ms. Colmey suggested that those statutory moments are what the Committee is here for, to deal with a crisis of legalization, so Ms. Colmey requested the Committee to think seriously about that. Susan Tibbon: Ms. Tibbon stated that the State is still just slightly over one percent adoption in relation to projected matrix, both for Mendocino County and the state. And much of what is going to be tabled must be examined more closely because otherwise the black market will be promoted; and the state is fast losing most of its medical cannabis, mirroring Colorado, which has lost 90 percent of it. Ross Gordon: Mr. Gordon expressed concern about small growers' ability to enter the regulated market. The current situation is a crisis, and Mr. Gordon expressed hope that the Committee take its mandates seriously for that reason. Mr. Gordon asked that anything the Committee decide to table be made clearly available to the public very quickly, and that there be broad public comments solicited on those items. Mr. Gordon expressed that compassion is a great example of something every single Committee discussed. It is clearly a major crisis issue in the system right now, and that is worth having the Committee vote on today. Ron Edwards: Mr. Edwards expressed that a lot of the items on the agenda, particularly when it comes to nurseries and cultivation, are time sensitive. Mr. Edwards indicated that stakeholders are ready to go into a cultivation issue dealing with the A and the M, and if the Committee puts these off, many stakeholders are now further into the cultivation season. Mr. Edwards indicated that perishable product is at stake, particularly with a nursery. Mr. Edwards suggested that many of the issues are statutory, and the Committee needs to get those issues in front of the legislature so that they can be addressed. Max Mikalonis: Mr. Mikalonis suggested a substitute motion on this issue, which would be to move and table these items until the next meeting, rather than table them for a future meeting, to ensure that they do get taken up at the Committee meeting in Oakland. Roll call vote was taken, the motion to table the Subcommittees’ proposed statutory recommendations failed on an 8-11 vote. 1 Committee Member abstained. Page 4 of 35 Wt We VEU we LORY.NG Avis Bulbulyan Timmen Cermak Matt Clifford Bill Dombrowski Jeff Ferro Kristin Heidelbach- Teramoto Eric Hirata Alice Huffman Catherine Jacobson Arnold Leff Kristin Lynch Kristin Nevedal Joe Nicchitta LaVonne Peck Matt Rahn Keith Stephenson James Sweeney Tamar Todd Helena Williams David Woolsey v Ben Wu v Beverly Yu Vv Additional Committee Comments: 3 Comments Committee Member Ferro motioned to move all statutory items for consideration to the Oakland meeting. Committee Member Huffman seconded the motion. Vice-Chair Todd suggested a motion: to take the statutory items and move them to the next meeting in Oakland, with a caveat that if a Subcommittee chair thinks there is a statutory item within their Subcommittee that is particularly timely and should be heard today, the Committee allow the room to raise that specific statutory item. Committee Member Ferro accepted Committee Member Todd’s amendment to his motion. Committee Member Jacobson seconded the amended motion. Additional Public Comment: 4 Comments Paul Hansberry: Mr. Hansberry suggested that the Committee members made an excellent point, there is legislation that has been introduced probably today and they can modify those bills and add language until it comes to the floor for a vote. This would give it priority, if it comes from the Committee. Page 5 of 35 Susan Tibbon: Ms. Tibbon encouraged the Committee to look carefully at each item and weigh how much that item will affect people who grow this plant. Ron Edwards: Mr. Edwards stated that cultivation issues are happening now, particularly around the A and M; the sooner the Committee can get these important issues before the legislature the better. Unknown: The commenter stated that compassionate care certainly needs to be addressed. This entire government and the preceding ones before it was built here for the patients. For cancer patients suffering from cachexia, the commenter considered the dosage limit on edibles far too small. Tim: Tim respectfully suggested that the Committee identify a short list of urgency items in the statutory arena that it wants to take up today. Table the others perhaps for the next meeting. Roll call vote was taken, the motion to table the Subcommittees’ proposed statutory recommendation until the May 17" Oakland meeting unless a Subcommittee chair chooses to present one, passed on a 19-0 vote. ED) WG Fito VUE Ui NEY I OL RYU E Avis Bulbulyan Timmen Cermak Matt Clifford Bill Dombrowski Jeff Ferro Kristin Heidelbach- Teramoto Eric Hirata Alice Huffman Catherine Jacobson Arnold Leff Kristin Lynch Kristin Nevedal Joe Nicchitta LaVonne Peck Matt Rahn Keith Stephenson James Sweeney Tamar Todd Helena Williams David Woolsey Ben Wu Beverly Yu Committee Comments: 9 Comments Page 6 of 35 Committee Member Jacobson motioned the Committee to adopt the Testing Laboratory Subcommittee’s Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3 with modification to state: "The Bureau should define acceptable reference standards in the final regulations;" and Recommendation No. 4. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sweeney. Committee Member Heidelbach-Teramoto requested clarification regarding Recommendation No. 2, expiration dates in relation to relabeling. Committed Member Jacobson clarified that the recommendation is just to allow manufacturers to get a test and have that test be valid until their expiration date, it would not prohibit relabeling, if that is required. Committee Member Bulbulyan questioned the wording of Recommendation No. 2, stating it says, "as determined by the manufacturer." If the distributor is responsible for the testing, how would it be determined by the manufacturer? Committee Member Jacobson clarified the manufacturer puts the expiration date on the product and is responsible for all the content of that product until that expiration date. The distributor is not held responsible for the expiration date of the product. Committee Member Jacobson modified Recommendation No. 2 to state "Regulations should clarify that the testing results are valid on a finished manufactured cannabis product until the expiration date of the finished product, which is determined by the manufacturer." Assistant Chief Counsel Colson clarified that the recommendations indicate the direction the Committee would like to provide to the licensing authorities; it is not the final language that will be in the regulations. The licensing authorities will craft the specific regulatory language based on the recommendation and the law, and will make sure the language is consistent with the rest of the regulations in terms of the use of defined terms. Committee Member Nevedal questioned the acceptable reference standards, stating, reference standards for cannabis are very costly, and they are hard to come by. Most people develop their own reference standards in-house. Committee Member Jacobson commented there are reference standards that are available, and unless labs are using the same reference standards, we cannot ensure reproducible results. Public Comment: 11 Comment Joseph Evans: Mr. Evans suggested that subcontracting to a second certified marijuana testing laboratory should be in the language somewhere. Aaron Riley: Mr. Riley stated that all the cannabinoids that are in the regulations are available by third-party vendors. Servino Seguira: Mr. Seguira indicated that there are reference standards available from many different manufacturers; they are not expensive with respect to the cost of running a QC-certified lab. Not all reference standards are made equal. There are even different companies that make reference standards that, when tested with respect to each other, do not yield the exact same absorbance that should be seen. Tim Morland: Mr. Morland suggested that there needs to be some reference standards. Otherwise, it is going to create a huge problem in the market. Sunshine Lencho: Ms. Lencho echoed the other commenters who have supported having a single reference standard. She encouraged the Committee to look at the fiscal impact of creating a state reference standard. Daniel Crane: Mr. Crane indicated that the state does not need to reinvent the wheel for a lot of these protocols. The protocols exist for other agricultural crops for determining E. Coli and Page 7 of 35 Botrytis cinerea; things that are going to cause people to fail their testing requirements and must destroy that batch from the crop. Ross Gordon: Mr. Gordon indicated that easing barriers around informational testing is a really important issue for stakeholders and one that has been overlooked in the regulations. He suggested an amendment to Section 5315 (g)(3) of the BCC regulations. This regulation says that a transport-only distributor is not able to transport product to a licensed testing laboratory. That makes sense for certified testing. But, with testing for informational purposes only, the transporter license should be able to arrange for that. Unknown: The commenter recommended to keep a standard of quality for the standards that the Committee is talking about. Unknown: The commenter suggested that there should be a board that can decide who can contract; ifa licensee is going to do subcontracting for waste disposal, then go through a state body and be approved. Alexis D'Angelo: Mr. D’ Angelo suggested that it is unrealistic to expect standardization with all the potential analytes that have not even been tested yet. Setting appropriate criteria, possibly incorporating standard methodologies from other industries, would be a great step in the right direction. Unknown: The commenter indicated they are not experiencing challenges in the County of L.A. when it comes to waste disposal. The commenter indicated that they are operating within the confines of the County and the City municipal waste hauler. Deputy Chief Ramil restated the motion is for the Committee to adopt the Testing Laboratory Subcommittee’s Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3 with modification to state: "The Bureau should define acceptable reference standards in the final regulations;" and Recommendation No.